FREE FIREARMS FOR EVERYONE GUNS FOR BABIES, ALL THE GUNS FOR ALL THE BABIES (tiny american flags for others)
ok, i'm gonna address the idea that 'sensible gun control' means you have to demonstrate a 'need' before you are allowed to have one. let's try applying that to other objects that could be used to harm people. do you really 'need' a car? if you live somewhere with public transportation, no driver's license for you! do you 'need' a chainsaw? if you're not a logger, too bad! buy your firewood pre-cut like everyone else, poser. a gun is a tool. safety regulations for tools are sensible. allowing people to have tools only on sufferance, whether they can use them safely or not, is a disturbing precedent.
Given how the US government (and other governments, to be sure, but that's the one we're talking about here) is with forcing people to constantly jump through humiliating hoops for scraps of poverty or disability assistance, do you really trust them to fairly assess legitimate need? Because I sure as hell don't.
shuffles over here Mmmm okay how about this example: Family has reasonable property ownership in suburbs that happens to be near a forest, miles off. It's known for good hunting. Father figure (mother figure idc really) has military experience, thus has understanding of firearms. finds that hunting would help financially in the long run because the family won't need to buy as much meat to survive, can sell the pelts or use them for decorating the home as rugs or something. Wants to teach kids how to do the same, since they're old enough to be responsible with a gun and can learn to fend for themselves. Double financial gain. They don't need a hunting rifle, it's bulky and they aim better with a handgun. Less shots taken because of better aim = ammo saved = more chances to take out more prey. If they can't take the gun off their property, how will they get to the forest where they want to hunt? Do they qualify as having a need for one? Why are they only allowed to have a rifle? No one's saying stricter gun control involving background checks is bad (and we all seem to be in agreement this would be SMART), but it's hard to decide who's blessed enough to have a gun? I picked out this kind of specific instance because it seems like something that counters your points; there's many difference scenarios that calls for needing a gun.
That seems super ineffective to me, as it still just means that gun access can be attained regardless of context beyond prior convictions, or reason beyond "I want one". Which seems dangerous as fuck when we are talking about deadly weaponry. In the UK, firearms can only be owned by members of the public if they have a good reason to have them. These aren't my words, this is how it's specifically mandated. This seems super reasonable to me? Especially seeing the level of fire that you are literally playing with when you purchase a firearm.
Disclosure: I own my grandfather's 16 ga. side-by-side Lefever Nitro Special (actually made by Ithaca Arms). I can't remember the exact manufacturing date and don't feel like getting it out of the closet and running the serial number, but it's about 80 years old. I have about a dozen shells for it. 16 ga. shells usually have to be special ordered because it is no longer a popular gauge.
Also guns for self defense starts to look a lot more legitimate when you're living half an hour from anybody else.
Given the fact that the current US attitude towards gun control is essentially "there is none", I doubt that there'd be much trouble sourcing a gun if you tell them you want to hunt with it, which would be a good reason under the rules I just quoted.
Also I'd assume that different rules would be applied to areas where hunting can reasonably carried out, such as wilderness, as opposed to urban areas where you would be unlikely to be able to find much big game. :0
But that addresses none of my questions. You've just blown a hole in your own argument saying that people can say basically anything to get a gun, and there be the chance they don't have criminal record to be denied one because they haven't had the opportunity to. If I were tweaked in the head I could just be biding my time until able to get my hands on a gun. My friends or family wouldn't know because I don't currently have the means to act on my impulses, thus I'm not showing reason to expose those impulses.
Honestly, I'm pretty okay with how gun regulations currently work (maybe more limits on the types of firearms a person can purchase, but I'm not super educated on the topic, so), but am a fan of increasing ammunition regulations.
Black bears live in the same place as my city. I live in the county seat. Define urban areas and how big this game has to be.
Person who works in a Southern gun store chiming in: - 75% of guns sold in our store are for hunting. Lots of people have multiple hunting guns because this one is for deer and this one is small game and this one is waterfowl and this one is specifically for turkey hunting... - 15% are sold to collectors who want either "pretty" guns with pretty stock woods and engraving OR the big gnarly badass pseudo-military semi-autos - 10% is for "home protection" and those people scare me, because no, you can't put 12 gauge slugs into a thirty-ought-six and what do you mean you're not going to take it to a firing range and learn how to use it? Yes, it's "just a shotgun" but I assure you it's not as simple as "point and shoot" jegus fuck, you're going to shoot your dick off. That last bit is the gun control I care about. *shudder*
Nothing is failsafe. I just... Let's at least make sure a person at least gives a reason for their weapon. I'm sure that some amount of evidence - even just in the testimony of the two referees - would be required, other than just "yep, hand me my weapon, please".
I live in a major metropolitan area and it would be like 2 hours tops to get to one of the kinds of national land that allows hunting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state please stop arguing from stereotype. you don't know nearly enough about the US to be passing judgement here.
